Kim Routh, D.O.; Decision and Order, 2028-2029 [2025-00395]
Download as PDF
2028
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Kim Routh, D.O.; Decision and Order
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
On May 1, 2024, the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show
Cause (OSC) to Kim Routh, D.O., of
Grove City, Ohio (Registrant). Request
for Final Agency Action (RFAA),
Exhibit (RFAAX) C, at 1, 3. The OSC
proposed the revocation of Registrant’s
Certificate of Registration No.
BR9077000, alleging that Registrant’s
registration should be revoked because
Registrant is ‘‘currently without
authority to prescribe, administer,
dispense, or otherwise handle
controlled substances in the State of
Ohio, the state in which [he is]
registered with DEA.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 21
U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
The OSC notified Registrant of his
right to file a written request for hearing,
and that if he failed to file such a
request, he would be deemed to have
waived his right to a hearing and be in
default. Id. (citing 21 CFR 1301.43).
Here, Registrant did not request a
hearing. RFAA, at 2.1 ‘‘A default, unless
excused, shall be deemed to constitute
a waiver of the [registrant’s] right to a
hearing and an admission of the factual
allegations of the [OSC].’’ 21 CFR
1301.43(e).
Further, ‘‘[i]n the event that a
registrant . . . is deemed to be in
default . . . DEA may then file a request
for final agency action with the
Administrator, along with a record to
support its request. In such
circumstances, the Administrator may
enter a default final order pursuant to
[21 CFR] 1316.67.’’ Id. § 1301.43(f)(1).
Here, the Government has requested
final agency action based on Registrant’s
default, pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c),
(f), 1301.46. RFAA, at 1; see also 21 CFR
1316.67.
Findings of Fact
The Agency finds that, in light of
Registrant’s default, the factual
allegations in the OSC are admitted.
According to the OSC, on February 14,
2024, the State Medical Board of Ohio
permanently revoked Registrant’s Ohio
medical license. RFAAX 2, at 2.
According to Ohio online records, of
which the Agency takes official notice,
Registrant’s Ohio medical license
1 Based on the Government’s submissions in its
RFAA dated June 11, 2024, the Agency finds that
service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate. The
included declaration from a DEA Diversion
Investigator (DI) indicates that on May 6, 2024,
Registrant was personally served with a copy of the
OSC. RFAAX 1, at 2; RFAAX D.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:28 Jan 08, 2025
Jkt 265001
remains revoked.2 eLicense Ohio
Professional Licensure License Lookup,
https://elicense.ohio.gov/oh_
verifylicense (last visited date of
signature of this Order). Accordingly,
the Agency finds that Registrant is not
licensed to practice medicine in Ohio,
the state in which he is registered with
DEA.
Discussion
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the
Attorney General is authorized to
suspend or revoke a registration issued
under 21 U.S.C. 823 ‘‘upon a finding
that the registrant . . . has had his State
license or registration suspended . . .
[or] revoked . . . by competent State
authority and is no longer authorized by
State law to engage in the . . .
dispensing of controlled substances.’’
With respect to a practitioner, DEA has
also long held that the possession of
authority to dispense controlled
substances under the laws of the state in
which a practitioner engages in
professional practice is a fundamental
condition for obtaining and maintaining
a practitioner’s registration. Gonzales v.
Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 270 (2006) (‘‘The
Attorney General can register a
physician to dispense controlled
substances ‘if the applicant is
authorized to dispense . . . controlled
substances under the laws of the State
in which he practices.’ . . . The very
definition of a ‘practitioner’ eligible to
prescribe includes physicians ‘licensed,
registered, or otherwise permitted, by
the United States or the jurisdiction in
which he practices’ to dispense
controlled substances. § 802(21).’’). The
Agency has applied these principles
consistently. See, e.g., James L. Hooper,
M.D., 76 FR 71,371, 71,372 (2011), pet.
for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x 826 (4th
Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton,
M.D., 43 FR 27,616, 27,617 (1978).3
2 Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an
agency ‘‘may take official notice of facts at any stage
in a proceeding—even in the final decision.’’
United States Department of Justice, Attorney
General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure
Act 80 (1947) (Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint
1979). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e), ‘‘[w]hen an
agency decision rests on official notice of a material
fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, a
party is entitled, on timely request, to an
opportunity to show the contrary.’’ Accordingly,
Registrant may dispute the Agency’s finding by
filing a properly supported motion for
reconsideration of findings of fact within fifteen
calendar days of the date of this Order. Any such
motion and response shall be filed and served by
email to the other party and to Office of the
Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration at
dea.addo.attorneys@dea.gov.
3 This rule derives from the text of two provisions
of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). First,
Congress defined the term ‘‘practitioner’’ to mean
‘‘a physician . . . or other person licensed,
registered, or otherwise permitted, by . . . the
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
According to Ohio statute, ‘‘[n]o
person shall knowingly obtain, possess,
or use a controlled substance or a
controlled substance analog,’’ except
pursuant to a ‘‘prescription issued by a
licensed health professional authorized
to prescribe drugs if the prescription
was issued for a legitimate medical
purpose.’’ Ohio Rev. Code Ann.
§ 2925.11(A), (B)(1)(d) (West 2024).
Further, a ‘‘ ‘[l]icensed health
professional authorized to prescribe
drugs’ or ‘prescriber’ means an
individual who is authorized by law to
prescribe drugs or dangerous drugs or
drug therapy related devices in the
course of the individual’s professional
practice.’’ Id. § 4729.01(I). The Ohio
statute further defines an authorized
prescriber as ‘‘[a] physician authorized
under Chapter 4731. of the Revised
Code to practice medicine and surgery,
osteopathic medicine and surgery, or
podiatric medicine and surgery.’’ Id.
§ 4729.01(I)(4). Additionally, Ohio law
permits ‘‘[a] licensed health professional
authorized to prescribe drugs, if acting
in the course of professional practice, in
accordance with the laws regulating the
professional’s practice’’ to prescribe or
administer schedule II, III, IV, and V
controlled substances to patients. Id.
§ 3719.06(A)(1)(a)–(b).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the
record is that Registrant lacks a license
to practice medicine in Ohio. As
discussed above, an individual must be
a licensed health professional
authorized to prescribe drugs in order to
handle controlled substances in Ohio.
Thus, because Registrant lacks a license
to practice medicine in Ohio and,
therefore, is not authorized to handle
controlled substances in Ohio,
Registrant is not eligible to maintain a
DEA registration. Accordingly, the
Agency will order that Registrant’s DEA
registration be revoked.
jurisdiction in which he practices . . ., to
distribute, dispense, . . . [or] administer . . . a
controlled substance in the course of professional
practice.’’ 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the
requirements for obtaining a practitioner’s
registration, Congress directed that ‘‘[t]he Attorney
General shall register practitioners . . . if the
applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled
substances under the laws of the State in which he
practices.’’ 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1). Because Congress
has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess
state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner
under the CSA, DEA has held repeatedly that
revocation of a practitioner’s registration is the
appropriate sanction whenever he is no longer
authorized to dispense controlled substances under
the laws of the state in which he practices. See, e.g.,
James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR at 71,371–72; Sheran
Arden Yeats, M.D., 71 FR 39,130, 39,131 (2006);
Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51,104, 51,105
(1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11,919, 11,920
(1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR at
27,617.
E:\FR\FM\10JAN1.SGM
10JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 6 / Friday, January 10, 2025 / Notices
Order
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the
authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C.
824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate
of Registration No. BR9077000 issued to
Kim Routh, D.O. Further, pursuant to 28
CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in
me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny
any pending applications of Kim Routh,
D.O., to renew or modify this
registration, as well as any other
pending application of Kim Routh, D.O.,
for additional registration in Ohio. This
Order is effective February 10, 2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug
Enforcement Administration was signed
on January 3, 2025, by Administrator
Anne Milgram. That document with the
original signature and date is
maintained by DEA. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DEA Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
DEA. This administrative process in no
way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Heather Achbach,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2025–00395 Filed 1–8–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[OMB Number 1122–0006]
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Extension of Previously
Approved eCollection eComments
Requested; Semiannual Progress
Report for the Improving Criminal
Justice Responses to Sexual Assault,
Domestic Violence, Dating Violence,
and Stalking Grant Program
Office on Violence Against
Women, Department of Justice.
ACTION: 30-Day notice.
AGENCY:
The Department of Justice
(DOJ), Office on Violence Against
Women, will be submitting the
following information collection request
to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Comments are encouraged and
will be accepted for 30 days until
February 10, 2025.
khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
If
you have comments especially on the
estimated public burden or associated
response time, suggestions, or need a
copy of the proposed information
collection instrument with instructions
or additional information, please
contact: Catherine Poston, Office on
Violence Against Women, at 202–514–
5430 or Catherine.poston@usdoj.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
proposed information collection was
previously published in the Federal
Register on November 5, 2024 (89 FR
87894) allowing a 60-day comment
period.
Written comments and suggestions
from the public and affected agencies
concerning the proposed collection of
information are encouraged. Your
comments should address one or more
of the following four points:
—Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
—Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and/or
—Minimize the burden of the collection
of information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Written comments and
recommendations for this information
collection should be submitted within
30 days of the publication of this notice
on the following website
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
Find this particular information
collection by selecting ‘‘Currently under
30-day Review—Open for Public
Comments’’ or by using the search
function and entering either the title of
the information collection or the OMB
Control Number 1122–0006. This
information collection request may be
viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the
instructions to view Department of
Justice, information collections
currently under review by OMB.
DOJ seeks PRA authorization for this
information collection for three (3)
years. OMB authorization for an ICR
cannot be for more than three (3) years
without renewal. The DOJ notes that
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
17:28 Jan 08, 2025
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2029
information collection requirements
submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs
receive a month-to-month extension
while they undergo review.
Overview of This Information
Collection
1. Type of Information Collection:
Extension of a previously approved
collection.
2. The Title of the Form/Collection:
Semiannual Progress Report for the
Improving Criminal Justice Responses to
Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence,
Dating Violence, and Stalking Grant
Program.
3. The agency form number, if any,
and the applicable component of the
Department sponsoring the collection:
1122–0006.
4. Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as the
obligation to respond: The affected
public includes 200 grantees from the
ICJR Program which encourages state,
local, and tribal governments and state,
local, and tribal courts to treat domestic
violence, dating violence, sexual
assault, and stalking as serious
violations of criminal law requiring the
coordinated involvement of the entire
criminal justice system. Eligible
applicants are states and territories,
units of local government, Indian tribal
governments, coalitions, victim service
providers and state, local, tribal, and
territorial courts.
5. An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond: It is estimated that it will take
the approximately 200 respondents
(ICJR Program grantees) approximately
one hour to complete a semi-annual
progress report. The semi-annual
progress report is divided into sections
that pertain to the different types of
activities in which grantees may engage.
An ICJR Program grantee will only be
required to complete the sections of the
form that pertain to its own specific
activities (victim services, law
enforcement, training, etc.).
6. An estimate of the total annual
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: The total annual hour burden
to complete the data collection forms is
400 hours, that is 200 grantees
completing a form twice a year with an
estimated completion time for the form
being one hour.
7. The total annual hour burden to
complete the data collection forms is
400 hours, that is 200 grantees
completing a form twice a year with an
estimated completion time for the form
being one hour.
8 . An estimate of the total annual
cost burden associated with the
E:\FR\FM\10JAN1.SGM
10JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 6 (Friday, January 10, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2028-2029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00395]
[[Page 2028]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Kim Routh, D.O.; Decision and Order
On May 1, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Kim Routh, D.O., of
Grove City, Ohio (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA),
Exhibit (RFAAX) C, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of
Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. BR9077000, alleging that
Registrant's registration should be revoked because Registrant is
``currently without authority to prescribe, administer, dispense, or
otherwise handle controlled substances in the State of Ohio, the state
in which [he is] registered with DEA.'' Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(3)).
The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file a written request
for hearing, and that if he failed to file such a request, he would be
deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in default. Id.
(citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a hearing.
RFAA, at 2.\1\ ``A default, unless excused, shall be deemed to
constitute a waiver of the [registrant's] right to a hearing and an
admission of the factual allegations of the [OSC].'' 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated June
11, 2024, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on Registrant was
adequate. The included declaration from a DEA Diversion Investigator
(DI) indicates that on May 6, 2024, Registrant was personally served
with a copy of the OSC. RFAAX 1, at 2; RFAAX D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, ``[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be
in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action
with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In
such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order
pursuant to [21 CFR] 1316.67.'' Id. Sec. 1301.43(f)(1). Here, the
Government has requested final agency action based on Registrant's
default, pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c), (f), 1301.46. RFAA, at 1; see
also 21 CFR 1316.67.
Findings of Fact
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the
factual allegations in the OSC are admitted. According to the OSC, on
February 14, 2024, the State Medical Board of Ohio permanently revoked
Registrant's Ohio medical license. RFAAX 2, at 2. According to Ohio
online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, Registrant's
Ohio medical license remains revoked.\2\ eLicense Ohio Professional
Licensure License Lookup, https://elicense.ohio.gov/oh_verifylicense
(last visited date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency
finds that Registrant is not licensed to practice medicine in Ohio, the
state in which he is registered with DEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an agency ``may take
official notice of facts at any stage in a proceeding--even in the
final decision.'' United States Department of Justice, Attorney
General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 80 (1947) (Wm.
W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e),
``[w]hen an agency decision rests on official notice of a material
fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, a party is
entitled, on timely request, to an opportunity to show the
contrary.'' Accordingly, Registrant may dispute the Agency's finding
by filing a properly supported motion for reconsideration of
findings of fact within fifteen calendar days of the date of this
Order. Any such motion and response shall be filed and served by
email to the other party and to Office of the Administrator, Drug
Enforcement Administration at [email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized
to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 ``upon a
finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or
registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State
authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . .
. dispensing of controlled substances.'' With respect to a
practitioner, DEA has also long held that the possession of authority
to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which
a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental
condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 270 (2006) (``The Attorney General
can register a physician to dispense controlled substances `if the
applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under
the laws of the State in which he practices.' . . . The very definition
of a `practitioner' eligible to prescribe includes physicians
`licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by the United States or
the jurisdiction in which he practices' to dispense controlled
substances. Sec. 802(21).''). The Agency has applied these principles
consistently. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71,371, 71,372
(2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App'x 826 (4th Cir. 2012);
Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27,616, 27,617 (1978).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the
Controlled Substances Act (CSA). First, Congress defined the term
``practitioner'' to mean ``a physician . . . or other person
licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by . . . the
jurisdiction in which he practices . . ., to distribute, dispense, .
. . [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of
professional practice.'' 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the
requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, Congress
directed that ``[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners
. . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled
substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.'' 21
U.S.C. 823(g)(1). Because Congress has clearly mandated that a
practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a
practitioner under the CSA, DEA has held repeatedly that revocation
of a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction
whenever he is no longer authorized to dispense controlled
substances under the laws of the state in which he practices. See,
e.g., James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR at 71,371-72; Sheran Arden Yeats,
M.D., 71 FR 39,130, 39,131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR
51,104, 51,105 (1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11,919, 11,920
(1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR at 27,617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Ohio statute, ``[n]o person shall knowingly obtain,
possess, or use a controlled substance or a controlled substance
analog,'' except pursuant to a ``prescription issued by a licensed
health professional authorized to prescribe drugs if the prescription
was issued for a legitimate medical purpose.'' Ohio Rev. Code Ann.
Sec. 2925.11(A), (B)(1)(d) (West 2024). Further, a `` `[l]icensed
health professional authorized to prescribe drugs' or `prescriber'
means an individual who is authorized by law to prescribe drugs or
dangerous drugs or drug therapy related devices in the course of the
individual's professional practice.'' Id. Sec. 4729.01(I). The Ohio
statute further defines an authorized prescriber as ``[a] physician
authorized under Chapter 4731. of the Revised Code to practice medicine
and surgery, osteopathic medicine and surgery, or podiatric medicine
and surgery.'' Id. Sec. 4729.01(I)(4). Additionally, Ohio law permits
``[a] licensed health professional authorized to prescribe drugs, if
acting in the course of professional practice, in accordance with the
laws regulating the professional's practice'' to prescribe or
administer schedule II, III, IV, and V controlled substances to
patients. Id. Sec. 3719.06(A)(1)(a)-(b).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant
lacks a license to practice medicine in Ohio. As discussed above, an
individual must be a licensed health professional authorized to
prescribe drugs in order to handle controlled substances in Ohio. Thus,
because Registrant lacks a license to practice medicine in Ohio and,
therefore, is not authorized to handle controlled substances in Ohio,
Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly,
the Agency will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.
[[Page 2029]]
Order
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21
U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No.
BR9077000 issued to Kim Routh, D.O. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR
0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I
hereby deny any pending applications of Kim Routh, D.O., to renew or
modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of
Kim Routh, D.O., for additional registration in Ohio. This Order is
effective February 10, 2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
January 3, 2025, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That document with the
original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the
Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer
has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic
format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the Federal Register.
Heather Achbach,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2025-00395 Filed 1-8-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P